dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to Tx

Re: Time to start shopping for a new isp.

said by Tx:

said by resa1983:

said by Tx:

I do not see Rogers named. The response was also pertinent to his statement he knows for a fact it will happen this time around as well.

We can't go by history either. Teksavvy had a history as well of doing things that it no longer does. So let's ignore the "they have a history of..." stuff.

When a bold statement such as "fact" is said pertinent to recent events, it tell's me one has more information then the rest of us know.

Nobody goes after Rogers. I suspect this has something to do with the rumour that Rogers requests $200 per IP to get a subscriber name.

Then maybe for once Rogers has the right idea?... You answered it yourself if true. I think it should be more, and that said i'm rather curious what Marc will be charging per

The thing is, its only to cover COSTS, not to make the IP->subscriber prohibitive.

Its really up to the courts what costs are assigned.. ISP will submit their actual costs, and it may be that an ISP has to 'eat' some of it. Rogers is extremely inefficient. We've seen this with 2011-703, where they go back and do things multiple times (running up costs of doing things). Its very possible that Rogers had to eat some of the costs of the IP->sub as they were already insanely high.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by resa1983:

The thing is, its only to cover COSTS, not to make the IP->subscriber prohibitive.

Its really up to the courts what costs are assigned.. ISP will submit their actual costs, and it may be that an ISP has to 'eat' some of it. Rogers is extremely inefficient. We've seen this with 2011-703, where they go back and do things multiple times (running up costs of doing things). Its very possible that Rogers had to eat some of the costs of the IP->sub as they were already insanely high.

Well considering they're being asked to associate 2300 IP's to accounts be it a 10% margin of them are the same user, high paid techs and "administrative fee's" could easily be pushed to a level of which is fair to TSI but absurd for Voltage to pay in order to get.

I'll be honest, i'm surprised a judge hasn't looked at Voltage's history over the last 6 years and seen that they barely produce movies anymore, they are just going after people as the new business model and this is not what copyright was intended for.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by Tx:

said by resa1983:

The thing is, its only to cover COSTS, not to make the IP->subscriber prohibitive.

Its really up to the courts what costs are assigned.. ISP will submit their actual costs, and it may be that an ISP has to 'eat' some of it. Rogers is extremely inefficient. We've seen this with 2011-703, where they go back and do things multiple times (running up costs of doing things). Its very possible that Rogers had to eat some of the costs of the IP->sub as they were already insanely high.

Well considering they're being asked to associate 2300 IP's to accounts be it a 10% margin of them are the same user, high paid techs and "administrative fee's" could easily be pushed to a level of which is fair to TSI but absurd for Voltage to pay in order to get.

I'll be honest, i'm surprised a judge hasn't looked at Voltage's history over the last 6 years and seen that they barely produce movies anymore, they are just going after people as the new business model and this is not what copyright was intended for.

Nobody but CIPPIC has brought up history, therefore the Judge can't really use it to make a decision yay or nay. Once CIPPIC becomes an intervenor, and a mini-trial of evidence prior to the court order occurs, only then can all this be brought up.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP